Ken Cukrowski — the Ministry of Women (ACU Lectures)
2010 October 5
66 Responses
leave one →
Sniffing out the work of God in the world…
Subscribe
Office of Church Relations | (310) 506–4270
24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, California 90263-4270
Here’s a helpful article by Jamey Walters, the husband of one of young women in the podcast, a former student at Harding and ACU, and now a Ph. D. candidate at Princeton in early Christian studies.
Mike, that last bit about Genesis’ creation “myth” has wrapped qb around the axle for several years now. qb agrees that it didn’t happen that way. The practical quandary has been, “how do I teach my children from this different set of assumptions?” And the issue gets really touchy if my wife and I are not on the same page!
The same quandaries arise in many other scriptural settings, not just the creation story. But it does bring the exegetical issues vividly to light, in a terribly practical context.
It also makes it tough to volunteer for VBS teaching duties!
qb
To call the creation narrative a myth is treading on such dangerous ground that I don’t even know how to comment. You’re right qb, it does make teaching children the Bible tricky… “My sweet daughter, you know you just can’t trust the authenticity of this book. Even the most straightforward passages require a Ph.D. to properly interpret all of the anthropomorphic skewing and cultural biases that humans have corrupted it with. You can trust God with your life and place yourself unreservedly into His hands, but don’t trust what He actually said, because humans have messed it up. They are just human after all, and even though our entire faith is built on the miraculous resurrection of Jesus from the dead, it is IMPOSSIBLE that God could miraculously inspire and protect His word from harmful human lies and myths.”
Yeah, that’s tricky. I’m not going there.
Thank you again, Mike, for putting these tools and perspectives out there.
Stephen, “myth” doesn’t mean “untrue” in this context. It’s become so corrupted in our common vernacular, but a myth is most accurately a tradition, a teaching story. It holds within it the truth of God and his workings, whether the individual details are minutely reported.
Mike, thanks for the link!
Q, I whole heartedly agree with your definition of myth, and that is precisely what I meant in my post. Myth is not the opposite of truth; it is a conduit of truth.
Yup, Jamey/Q, that’s the meaning of “myth” that qb had in view, too.
Similarly, we have it on pretty good authority that George Washington never really did cut down a cherry tree with a new hatchet and then go and admit to having done it. What we do know, however, was that George Washington was a man of exceedingly high character. The myth embodies the underlying truth in an accessible, vivid way.
qb
Mike, yes these videos and this article are quite helpful in seeing what has become of so-called scholarly work in our “brotherhood” today. There is another circular argument that the writer of the article missed –I must prove my point so therefore I must basically discount and rewrite the scriptures that do not agree with my viewpoint. I find it interesting that this comes after your posting that you could not worship a hippie, weak Jesus, but yet you can worship a God who evidently is so weak that he could not have the scriptures written to his specifications, nor look ahead to see the feminist movement of the 20th century. Instead he allowed his scripture to be filled with errors, inconsistencies and myths. Maybe we should do like Thomas Jefferson, who made his own Bible, and take out the “creation myth”, take out Paul, and take out any other passage or rewrite it if it doesn’t fit into our current world view. But, it better be written in pencil so when the next new cultural revelation comes down the pike we can take more out.
Feminism is an ironic double-edged sword. It claims to elevate women, but instead it has only undermined women by telling us that unless you are exactly like a man you are less than a woman. Baloney! If these women would like to preach, yes we need them! How about preaching to our young and old) women and instilling in us pride in our role as a woman and that we do not have to be carbon copies of men to have worth.
But when it gets labeled “myth” and is able to be twisted to say something other than what it says which is simply… Eve came from Adam’s rib, Eve sinned first… then we can make it say whatever we want it to say, since after all, it is just a myth that is skewed. I’m still not going there…. Standing with Jesus on this one…
Mark 10:6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
So what part of this “teaching story”is non-literal?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Jesus has granted a way for women’s gifts and voices to be heard that is MUCH broader than C of C practice. But, this issue, because of the abuses, is being USED as a springboard to undermine God’s word. The claim is that culture tainted and biased the scriptures. But the truth is, this issue and our natural sympathies for it, are causing folks to taint scripture with our current culture and that is an error from which there is no recourse.
I am trying to be polite and generous here, but the phrase “itching ears” keeps coming to mind.
I am aghast qb that you could even compare George Washington’s cherry tree with the Creation account… scary. I hope your wife can submissively talk some sense into you… Peace.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. A simple triangle is similar to a Gizan pyramid. To say that in no way diminishes the majesty of the latter. Mercy. qb
Since qb brought up Pete…
the man Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to… or is that also a myth?
1Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
Peter was no misogynist. He loved God and he loved his wife. He helped turn the world upside down. But our current culture says… nah, he got that female stuff wrong.
Please note: I am not advocating the C of C oppressive silent treatment. That is wrong (as is the whole concept of “church services” that is totally foreign to the NT. But this other line of thinking is trying to also affirm total functional equality between men and women… and that is not how my Bible reads, from the very start of it to the very end.
Amen QB. Try explaining any complicated concept to a child and you have to break it down to something much simpler. If people would just stop and think about it. Why would the creation story, which was written to and by primitive people, be told in scientific terms that would only makes sense to people that would not understand it until 2,000 years later? Yes God created creation!
When my daughter was young, we had great discussion about bible stories and how amazing God is. Now that she is a brilliant Jr. in high school, we have much more complex discussions about science, philosophy, evolution, creation, and how amazing God is. I don’t see the problem. Truth and God cannot be confined to our understanding.
To the sarcastic comment “Instead he allowed his scripture to be filled with errors, inconsistencies and myths.” The fact is there ARE errors, inconsistencies, myths, parables in the Bible. What then are you to make of them? If you take everything in the Bible, or even just the NT, literally you have some big challenges to overcome. If you take everything literally, then you make the text do something that it was not intended to do, and the “truth” of the passage can be lost. There is a reason that Jesus spoke in parables (stories) so much instead of giving answers and rules. Just look at the Pharisees.
Isn’t ironic that these errors and myths JUST HAPPEN to be with passages that don’t suit our fleshly preferences. No one is claiming the Bible is error-free and without human influence. But when core and foundational issues like authority and the role of men and women are placed in the crosshairs of these fallacious accusations of misogyny and cultural myth, well, now we are looking at dictating to God what He SHOULD have written.
The issue here is WHY, not WHAT? Why are THESE scriptures being called into question? Because current culture is god now and not the YAHWEH who declares of His people….
“But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward.” Jeremiah 7:24
Stephen – Your argument is, at best, disturbing. Do you not believe . . . don’t you know . . . that there are men and women who love God as much as you do and who are as committed to God as you are who would die for Jesus and his way — who differ with you?
Please quit the childish game of reducing your opponents to people who just want to ignore the parts of scripture they don’t like.
You said “no one is claiming the Bible is error-free.” First, I’m not sure that’s true. It sounds to me from the past week or so that some might claim that. But you mean that you don’t believe that. Nor do I. That’s a good beginning place.
Me wonders sometimes if some people just go looking and listening for things they can find fault with or take a molehill and make it into a mountain…it makes good for ad hominem argumentation.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Hey, Stephen, how you treating your slaves these days as per Philemon and Colossians?
Stephen,
I appreciate your desire to be true to what the Scriptures were intending to communicate in the first place. If we are forcing the Bible to fit into our whims and wishes, I don’t think that’s a very faithful way to read the text.
However, I am bothered by your assumption that this manipulative approach to the text is the modus operandi of scholars. I think this particularly bothers me since I know Dr. Cukrowski and his deep respect and love of Scriptures and can confidently say he would never approach the text in such a way.
It seems that we should continue searching how the Truth we find in Scripture should shape our current understandings and practices…and that we will continually discover ways in which the Scripture calls us to change. The Bible certainly challenges the world’s cultural norms…but it also challenges the Church’s cultural norms. Also, this is not some new fad that is just now being discussed – it has been discussed for many years, just usually not in public forums. My (educated) guess is that these discussions took place behind closed doors (partially) for fear that someone would misunderstand them and assign false, wrong motives to them – for example, accusing them of distorting Scripture to say what they want it to say.
I hope, instead, that we would ALL – regardless of where we might fall on this issue – will give one another the benefit of the doubt and trust that we are all doing our best to be faithful to God and the (simple yet so complex!) message we find in Scripture. This attitude would foster open, honest, challenging discussion rather than arguments.
So…with that in mind, I will respond to your questions/statements about the creation stories.
I want to reiterate the definitions of “myth” that have been given here. “Myth” is a literary genre, it does not mean “untrue” – in fact, I believe that “myths” are very powerful conduits of truth. There are many other “creation myths” that were circulating at the same time as the one in Genesis. At the time, these “myths” were used to convey truths about life as they knew it – in particular, truths about the relationships between the god(s), humans, and the rest of creation. The Jewish “creation myth” likely functioned as an alternative way to understand who exactly God is, who humans are, what the rest of the created order is, and the various relationships between those three elements. This, in my opinion, is SO powerful! This God is completely unlike the other gods presented in its contemporary “creation myths.” This God is personal, relational, orderly, intentional,…and the list could go on and on.
My point is, by calling the creation accounts in Genesis “myths,” I (and from what it seems, the others who have also used the word so far in this thread) by NO means intend to take away the Truth in the stories or twist it to serve our motives. Personally, I think this approach to these narratives lends itself to a much fuller understanding of the text and the Truth it holds about God, humans, the created order, and the relationships between all three than if we reduce these stories to a historical account…and this approach probably gets back to the way its original readers/hearers understood the stories to function.
I understand that is really challenging to the way you (and I!) have always understood these stories and how they function. And I am not asking you to adopt this view of those stories…but I do hope that my further explaining what I (we) mean by “myth” and how that might lead to a fuller understanding of the creation stories has clarified that it is not done in an attempt to make the story say what we want it to say, but rather in an attempt to be faithful to the stories and the Truth they contain.
Sorry this is lengthy, but I wanted to respectfully, kindly and honestly respond to your statements and try to better explain what I (we) mean by “myth.”
Anne – Feminism is about the ability to make choices in ones life. I have no problem being a feminist and being a feminine woman. I love men but have absolutely no desire to be one or to necessarily emulate them. The belief that feminists only want to be men is an unfortunate and destructive untruth usually perpetuated by people who don’t know any feminists personally. That may not be your situation, but please don’t paint us all with one brush. Your description of feminists and feminism does not describe me.
@Robert: I’m trying, I really am. It just feels like an agenda when there are dozens of scriptures and examples that talk about the male/female relationship and none that support the egalitarian view. None. It is so easy to get lost in the details, but a cursory reading of the entire Bible isn’t going to lead to the conclusion of, “Yep, men and women are equal in authority and function.” It feels culturally insensitive to say, “Man is the head of woman.” It feels awkward for me to write it because I too have grown up in this culture. But just because equality makes sense to us in our minds doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have very specific thoughts about it. So I can’t just escape the feeling that scripture is being rewritten to meet a culturally comfortable agenda. I’m not trying to broad brush anyone’s motives. I trust the sincerity, but I still trust Peter and Paul’s writings more. I know they knew God because God confirmed it with signs and fruit.
@Rex: I know what you mean but I promise you, I’m not a troll picking a fight. I appreciate your spirit and heart in all of your posts.
@Dan: I have no slaves but am one, and I try my best to work hard for my earthly master and obey his authority without question and as a bond-slave of Jesus, I try to give Him my all and obey His voice without question.
@Laura, thanks for the kind words and patient explanation. My posts were in relation to Mike’s link to Jamey Walters’ blog. And Jamey’s stated implication is, since the creation narrative is a myth, then Paul’s reference to it as an explanation of man’s headship over woman is no longer valid. My concern isn’t whether some things in the Bible are metaphorical or symbols of the truth, compressed or expanded for human understanding… I’m not categorically afraid of that. My concern is when a new framework is built around this dismissive approach that has massive implications to something as fundamental as the role of men and women.
Was the invasion and destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan just nationalism rubber stamped with divine authorship as the excuse? Those who take this myth approach tend to think so. I’m not trying to change the subject, but it is not our place to dictate to God what we *think* a loving God looks like. The male/female issue isn’t a pet doctrine for me. I have no authority ambitions. But this approach to scripture is like a doorway drug… seemingly small beginning that leads to much more dangerous ends.
I just have to say it one more time lest anyone group me with classic C of C that thinks women have no room to speak or expressive their gifts. I believe it is INSANE to deny women their usefulness and voice in the context of assembled or non-assembled saints. But that is a totally separate issue from those who claim a woman has EQUAL authority as a man and is under no obligation to defer to his headship or maintain a disposition of submission. I cannot find that claim anywhere in the Bible. But because these two issues (expression/usefulness and authority) get bundled together, then when clear scriptures that provide for the one (expression/usefulness) are put forward, then the authority issue comes along for a free ride. But they are two separate issues and there are no scriptures that support the egalitarian claim as it relates to authority.
Stephen,
Thanks for your comments/questions/concerns.
You claim to see no evidence that men and women have equal authority in Scripture, which leads me to ask: Did you actually watch all of Dr. Cukrowski’s videos? If you are looking for a proof text, then sure, it seems like men have authority over women. But if you look at the narratives behind the text, which Dr. Cukrowski does so well, we see that there are ample examples of women and men functioning as equals. And if you did watch the videos and hear the examples, how do you explain away what the text so clearly says?
I guess I just don’t see what the problem with the word “myth” is. I understand how it is used in theological conversations, so I know what most authors mean when they use the word…which reflects my own view of the Genesis creation narrative, which I believe in no way detracts from the truth that God is “maker of the heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen” (Nicene Creed), and is what seems to be the only required belief about creation early Christianity insisted upon (not how, in what time frame, whether God “formed” or created ex nihilo).
And just because we would not use the word “myth” to teach Genesis in our next VBS class, does not make it a bad word. There are plenty of words and phrases in the broad Christian vernacular that we would not use in a VBS class (e.g., propitiation, infallible, christological ethics, Trinity, etc…) Whether I disagree with any part of the article and Dr. Cukrowski’s presentation or not, I thought both were good thoughtful coherent offerings that deserve to be heard regardless of what position we hold on the entire gender-inclusivity issue.
Grace and peace,
Rex
And the fact that narratives *look* that way is proof that God’s practical application of authority isn’t as oppressive as the C of C has implemented it or as some women are afraid it is. BUT, that doesn’t mean that a genuine authority isn’t there. It is there and there are reasons the authority is there that are not cultural or based on misogyny. According to the Apostle Peter whose name is inscribed on the foundation of the walls of the heavenly city, “Sarah called Abraham master.” And that submission is of great worth in God’s sight. It doesn’t matter that the Iranians get it wrong. It doesn’t matter that there are some husbands that will “pull rank.” The abuses are not the point. The point is God is honored by a submissive heart.
@Rex As I have said, I have no issues categorically with he use of the word myth. I do have issues with the implications that some get to because of it.
Jamey writes: “In other words, neither Genesis 1 nor 2 is a factual account of creation. Get over it. We cannot base the equality of human beings on a myth that was written to provide theological reasoning for the culturally assumed “truth” that men have authority over women.”
In no uncertain terms, the truths in Genesis cannot be used authoritatively.
Stephen,
In scripture, slaves called their owners “master/lord” too. Yet the gospel has socially evolved Christian community to the point where the notion of slavery is condemned as immoral. So should the gospel also evolve the church to the point where gender distinctive roles are condemned also? That is the issue. If one answers that question in the negative, it seems they must be able to account for why the gospel does away with social distinctions such as the master-slave relationship but does not do so with gender.
Grace and peace,
Rex
“culturally assumed ‘truth’” is implying that the narrative is the figment of Moses’ imagination, retroactively building into the narrative his own gender biases.
God spoke face to face with Moses and in all kindness to Jamey, until I know that God is speaking face to face with Jamey, I’m going to trust Moses’ telling of the narrative.
@Rex, where does the gospel do away with master/slave distinctions? All that I can affirm that is immoral is the hateful, harsh treatment of slaves. But one of the most beautiful pictures in all of scripture is of the master/slave relationship in Exodus 21:5-6
“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.”
“Pierce my ear, oh lord, my God,
Take me to your door this day,
I will serve no other gods,
Lord I’m here to stay”
This is in the law which Paul calls “perfect.” There is nothing inherently immoral about masters and slaves. What is immoral is the abuses associated with it. But today, in our workplace, we better have the same obedience and submissiveness that is associated with slavery, because of Colossians 3:23-24
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
Stephen, it seems like if you follow your thought process to the logical end then you can’t allow your wife or any woman who is followoing what scripture says to wear braided hair, gold jewelry or fine clothes. How do you get around that portion of the scripture as any less important than the parts you have chosen to defend? The same word “should” is there just as it is in the “should” keep silent verse. I know I am missing something, but I just have to hear your reasoning.
Brad, please read my comment above. I am not in agreement with the “silence” interpretations. I do not endorse the squashing of the gifts and callings of women. I propose that those issues are separate from “authority” issues that are dear to the heart of God.
But to answer your question still… my wife (and daughters) do their absolute best not to draw attention to external beauty as much as possible (I promise you, that is her own doing based on her own walk with Jesus). She will not dress like a frump so as not to draw attention to herself in a distracting way, nor does she paint and jewel herself to draw attention that way. Modesty for her involves both keeping skin and curves hidden that could draw attention or cause men to stumble as well as dressing in such a way that limits attention, both positive or negative. Amish women, for example, draw enormous attention to themselves. The heart of the issue, and the heart is ALWAYS the real issue (legalism only looks to the outside of the cup, Spirit-led living focuses on the inside, but as James says, has external results)… the heart of the issue is I must decrease so that Christ may increase. That heart attitude is true and necessary for men and women. I hope that helps.
Stephen,
Galatians 3.28.
Any ways…your missing my point. The scripture does not do away with the master/lord relationship for all who profess the name of Jesus, profess him as Lord/Master and themselves as his slave/servant. But Galatians 3.28 certainly appears to do away with such social distinctions among us…in other words, it would be wrong for me to make myself a master and someone else my slave since we “…are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Also, Brad is making a good point. If the application of scripture is not culturally conditioned on any matter then every form (e.g., no braided hair; greeting with a holy kiss, literal foot-washing) must be adhered to. The question of when biblical form is necessary to biblical function is a big issue and one of the hermeneutical issues regarding gender-inclusivity.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Stephen,
Three things: 1) You never answered the question. Did you watch the videos? If so, how do you deal with the fact that there is equality mixed in with hierarchical statements? 2) Since neither I nor the vast majority of biblical scholarship thinks that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch, the question of who speaks to God face to face is rather off the point. 3) Since you posted a quote from my blog and chose your own way to interpret it, I thought it needed addressing: I read Gen 1 and 2 as two different mythical creation stories with the same truth: God is the creator. Moreover, my comment that you re-posted was intended to display my belief that Gen. 2 is, in part, a patriarchal “correction” of the more equal view of male and female in Gen. 1. That is, that particular creation story (Gen 2) was intended to provide theological support for what everyone assumed to be the case–that men have some kind of ontological authority over women.
Stephen, this is just an observation, but more than a concern for Scripture, you seem terrified that you will loose your place as “boss.” What comes through loudest is an adamant refusal to hear any position that “threatens” your place at the top of the pyramid — despite serving a God who habitually topples pyramids.
Why the fear?
Rex and Brad,
Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 are nearly twin verses. Paul is saying that Father see us and treats us all equally in Christ. There was EXTREME prejudice between Jews and Gentiles, between men and women, between slave and free in that culture. Prejudice and favoritism is wrong and THAT is the issue being addressed in those verses. He isn’t making a statement about authority, he is making a statement about prejudice. And in Colossians, right after the verses about no distinction and Christ being all in all, we see these verses…
Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Colossians 3:19 – Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
Colossians 3:20 – Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
Colossians 3:21 – Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
Colossians 3:22 – Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
There is a theme in those verses that is consistent with the whole of scripture for 4,000 years. Honor authority. Authorities, be gentle and non-domineering.
What Brad is saying is absolutely true if one were a legalist (which I am not), viewing Matthew through Revelation as some sort of new Leviticus, following the “letter” of the law so to speak. So the writings from the beginning of the New Covenant should not be approached from a need to do exactly every jot and tittle… but that doesn’t give us the right to ignore the heart behind the commands. “Man looks on the outside, but God looks at the heart.”
For example, to thank the cook for a meal in our culture, we say “Thank you” with a specific compliment possibly. In other cultures, a loud belch is appropriate (at least according to some movies). So what is appropriate in one culture is rude in another. So the expression needs to be culturally relevant. But the “heart” of gratitude is the same in all cultures.
What I am desperately trying to communicate is that “authority” and “submission” are like gratitude… they are foundational truths that do not change, regardless of culture. How that would be expressed in the first century church, which for ladies included head coverings, may indeed be different now, conforming more to what is culturally appropriate. But man as head of woman has been in His heart from day one. The “greet one another with a holy kiss” can translate into a firm handshake or genuine hug. But the heart of mutual affection should still be obeyed and practiced. Washing feet may translate into offering a cup of coffee and taking a coat, but service and loving another more than myself is the heart of the matter that doesn’t change. I hope that helps shed light.
Stephen,
I do appreciate what seems to be a gracious tone. I don’t think were going to come to agreement in this format (that’s just the nature of blogs), so I am going to bow out from the discussion. I do appreciate the conversation with and others.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Q, this is why I dislike blogs, because, in all kindness, you can’t possibly no what I fear based on what I wrote here.
What I fear has nothing to do with power or authority. If I listed for you the 10 most spiritual people I personally know, 6 or 7 of them would be women. One would be my wife and I wouldn’t even make it on my own list. Consider my wife as Deborah and me as Lappidoth. And I love her for it. With her prophetic insight, she keeps me on the straight and narrow. I’d be spiritually dead without her. And I am absolutely secure with it that way. Scout’s honor. I have no “boss” agenda or preference. But in a large room of believers, my wife still won’t chime in (though she can and does) without at least giving me a wink and making sure I’m ok with her sharing something. She honors me as her head, though I don’t deserve it, because she believes it honors Christ to function that way. She doesn’t ride over the top of me and demand to be heard. She offers her gifts to the body of Christ as a sweet smelling aroma. How it actually works out in daily life (and that is part of the key) is very organic and relational and can’t be described too well with words.
What I am afraid of, specifically for those with a history of a legalisitc approach to scriptures (like the Stone Campbell movement) is that they overreact and toss the baby out with the bath water. Schisms form when total agreement to the letter of the law becomes the standard for fellowship. History has shown that. But an overreaction is the easy solution, claiming that all these strict interpretations were all from narrow minded conservatives who weren’t aware of using life experience as a way to interpret the Bible, and suddenly everything that was heresy yesterday becomes the new, freer, we-can-all-have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too gospel of cultural relevancy and tolerance. BUT there is a higher place, one that is neither legalistic nor liberal, a place that is in the Spirit that can’t be taught at Princeton or ACU… it can only be lived on a cross for others in daily life and love. But most don’t want that because it means death to self. It is much easier to get a degree than to take a nail for someone. But when you share in His suffering, being conformed to His death and resurrection, then you *begin* to know Him and the Power of His rising. And that place is neither legal nor liberal, though the legalists will think you are bleeding-heart liberal, and the liberated will think you are a cool-aid drinking bible thumper.
When I was growing up, I wasn’t allowed to “mix swim” or go to dances. It was our C of C rules. It didn’t help me with my heart. My heart was still lustful even when I obeyed the rules. Some said the rules were old-fashioned and out of touch with current culture. So the youth group started having beach parties. Fellow youth group members started going to dances. Can you imagine how putting 16-year-olds together in their frilly colored underwear (aka swimsuits) or rubbing their boddies against each other to slow sensual music resulted in pregnancies and rape and abortions and broken homes.. It happened and is still happening. Yes, the old rules were just rules that didn’t help anyone. Legalism never cures a soul. But tossing the rules out sure didn’t help anyone either… and THAT is where it feels like this “new interpretation” is going. Not higher, just the other side of the same mental coin. Flesh doesn’t get crucified, it gets pampered and justified. And the losses to real lives are immeasurable. I know that it may seem that anything other than stuffy C of C legalism is better. It’s not. It may seem more fun. But it won’t bear more fruit that will last…. fruit like youth groups that are pure, business men that are faithful to their wives, even when away on a trip in the privacy of their hotel, women that love God more than anything…. Time will tell. I hope my fears are unfounded. Beyond that, I have no qualms. Believe what you will but bear Galatians 5 fruit in real practice and experience, every day, with people who are hard to love. That is the test of right theology. It isn’t about what you believe… the ONLY thing that counts is a new creation having faith that expresses itself through love. (Galatians 5:6, 6:15) That’s where I want to be.
You wrote: “despite serving a God who habitually topples pyramids.” The ironic thing about your concern here is that I am vehemently opposed to man-made pyramids and power structures (vs. God-established authorities). Jesus, speaking of those in teaching authority, says in Matthew 23:6-12:
“They love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant.”
So I must ask Q, are you passionate about toppling this pyramid which is the norm in Christianity today? This is a clear, ultra simple command from Jesus that forbids the use of religious titles. Can you read it another way? Maybe Mike can start a new blog entry on the rise and history of clergy. Jesus lists three different titles so that we can get the point: Rabbi, Father and Teacher. Could we not add “Pastor” or “Minister” or “Reverend” and still be within the heart of what Jesus our master is commanding us? After you finish your own “ordination” process, will you graduate from a “liturgist” (not sure that has any roots other than human traditions) to a “pastor”… Will they call you Pastor Q? You can’t let them. I am neither being sarcastic nor personal here, but these are CRUCIAL issues. Clergy/laity caste systems are devastating to the church. Yes, there are leaders and those over us in the Lord, but that is a far cry from clergy/laity, hiring/firing, ordination, I own the teaching platform for 25 minutes, etc. “You all (greek) are a royal priesthood.” It is not “half the church” that has suffered from this disobedience… it is 99% of the church that has suffered, not simply from the use of titles, but from the false implication that there are “special spiritual people” and then there are “the rest of us.” Something to consider. Just because the entire religious world does it (in EVERY religion), doesn’t mean it is right.
Simply stated, you implied that my convictions were somehow based on some sort of insecurity on my part in regard to authority. Not guilty. My heart breaks because the church in America is broken: devestated lives and families, believers struggling under addictions and obsessions, rampant sin in the youth and adults. Sin. The stuff that crucifies Jesus afresh. Not doctrinal sin. Outright moral sin and a total lack of distinction from the world in regard to priorities and entertainment and money, etc. Maybe your outlook is brighter. I read the Barna stats and for the sake of Jesus, I fall to my knees and ask, “Where have we gone wrong?” My participation on this blog is not because I have some pet issue to shove down anyone’s throat. Christianity is broken and the solution cannot match the trend of this fallen planet. It must be of a different kind and quality. On this particular issue (men and women), I know there have been abuses and radical change is necessary. But we mustn’t force on Father our perceptions of how we want change to look. Nuff said. I’ll stop hijacking. xoxo Holy Hugs and kisses to you all. May the Lamb have the reward of His suffering.
I’m not in any measure a Greek scholar – have never had the blessing of studying the ancient Greek [nor the modern, for that matter] I have a question, and it’s just that, nothing more than a question.
What definition of “myth” is applied to 2 Timothy 4:3-5? Will all y’all help me. It might make this discussion clearer for me. Thanks so very much and I mean that from my heart!!
Jamey,
1) yes, I watched the videos. I differentiate between equal treatment and opportunity versus equal authority. What I see in Ken’s examples are equal treatment and opportunity.
2) Whoever wrote Genesis 2 knew God enough to know that the Tree of Life vs. the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is THE war of the ages. Why the weirdly named tree? And what does it mean for us today? I’ll let you ponder that.
3) If Genesis 1 is a more equal view in your mind, I still beg the philosophical question: why create male and female? Just to add spice? Why not just one asexual being that can self replicate? If God is self sufficient and he created us in His image (Gen 1), then why two sexes? My answer is: because there is authority and submission within the Godhead. We’ve been down this road before, but the phrase is, “Let US make man in OUR image.” Paul says, and I know you don’t agree with my “interpretation” here…
1Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The key here is that the “head of Christ is God.” If Christ is relationally submissive to God, His Father and they together are the “US” and “OUR” in Genesis 1, then it seems that the relationship between Father and the Son was reflected in creation, in males and females. That is WHY Jesus could wash the disciples feet, because submission is WHO GOD IS. He is authority and submission. This so totally corresponds to the blog post about whether Jesus is meek and mild or violent. Within God, we see both the Power to be King and the submissive heart to be Servant. To idolize one over the other is a misinterpretation of who He is.
So Jesus and the Father are ONE. Men and women are ONE. Yet Jesus submits to the Father. The NT is FILLED with references to the order between Jesus and the Father. A few simple examples:
Matthew 24:36
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Aren’t they equals? Is the Father keeping secrets?
Luke 22:29 Jesus speaking: And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
1Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
Again, I don’t know any other way to read it. Father is over the Son. There is headship in the Godhead and it seems like Gen 1 is saying that males and females reflect that order. Otherwise, there would be no need for gender differences at all.
This sums it up for me:
Philippians 2:5-11
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider EQUALITY with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
If we as men and women BOTH take this attitude, then it will all turn out right.
We both agree on one thing: “If we as men and women BOTH take this attitude [that of Christ in Phil 2], then it will all turn out right.”
The picture of authority within the Trinity which you have outlined (that God the father has authority over Christ the son) is called suboordinationism and was rejected by early Christians along with many other “un-orthodox” views of the relationship within the Trinity. That being said, I think you are right about this being the view presented in the NT. But here is where we are different: I adhere to the Nicene confession of faith in which there are three completely equal persons of the Trinity with no hierarchical distinctions. I imagine that your text only approach will view this as flawed, and I’m okay with that. I just think it’s important to point out that we have different criteria that lead us to different conclusions. Once again, it all comes back to how we view the Bible, though as this discussion points out, it also stems directly from how we view God.
Not at all trying to get “the last word” but for the record, you did concede “I think you are right about this being the view presented in the NT” meaning relational subordinationism… And if the New Covenant scriptures can articulate a healthy subordinationism, between the Father and the Son, then I think that same healthy relationship can be easily seen between males and females in the whole of NT scriptures. I think everything, post John’s death, including the Nicene council, is highly suspect and falls under what Paul prophesied as the coming apostasy. Even as early as the early 100′s, we see clergy and man-made hierarchy polluting the church.
Thanks for expressing more fully your concept of the “apostasy” of every writer outside of the NT documents. I respectfully, but vehemently disagree.
I didn’t say every writer was apostate. (although Constantine was about the worst thing to happen to Christianity, IMHO) But I do think, very similar to the shadow of the Construction of the Temple and the following divided Kingdom, that the history of Israel from David until the rebuilding of the second Temple in Haggai and Nehemiah’s day, is an historical parable that prophecies the establishment, fall and rebuilding of the church. A time of extreme early growth followed by apostasy and occasional faithful saints and then the restoration after many dry years. We are the temple. Just consider it.
Mike C… I’d be very curious if anything posted here in this thread adds anything at all to the discussion in your mind? I’d be curious what Ken thinks as well?
Are men and women ABSOLUTELY equal in terms of the authority roles granted them by God? Is there relational subordination between the Father and the Son? Or to say it another way, does the Father ever need to obey the Son? Their will’s have conflicted at least once in the past.
Stephen,
I am going to chime in again. I just want to caution against the strong condemning judgment made about everything that happened after the death of the Apostle John as being suspect and falling under the warning about apostasy. Have you ever studied how the NT Canon was formed? It seems as though every reader of scripture is the beneficiary of that canonical decision made in 382. Quibble all we want about post-apostolic decisions made by the church but we all beneficiaries of much good God accomplished though those Christians, including those whose faithful witness meant fed to the lions or being thrown into the fire for the name of Jesus Christ.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Thanks Rex. I appreciate your heart. But note that Jamey states that he draws his view of the Trinity from Nicean Council rather than what is stated in the NT. I’m not condemning anyone. I am so thankful for the canon. But Revelation 2 and 3 easily paints a picture that isn’t bright for the current condition of the church, even at that moment. Catholicism sprang from Nicea. Constantine merged church and state, making Christianity the “official” religion. That was a dark dark moment.
If you read what I wrote, comparing the history of Israel to the history of the true Israel, the Church, then you will see where I stand. Were there good kings between Solomon and the exiles…? yes, plenty: Hezekiah, Josiah, etc. But oh how the mighty had fallen. Point being, I am not broad brushing the condemnation of every Christian thinker from John until now. I’m just saying that in comparison, the time of the apostasy had happened: forbidding marriage, forbidding certain foods. Catholicism has done more harm in the name of Christ than I even know how to describe. Think Crusades. Am I saying all catholics are going to hell? No. But I highly question the leadership both today and in the 300s with all of their bishops and cardinals, etc.
I feel like this often happens, where the point of what I said turns into ad hominem and the points themselves are lost.
Forget I brought up the apostasy. Let’s strike that from the record. Jesus, John, Peter, Paul, Luke… these guys all seemed to believe that Jesus was relationally subordinate to the Father in the scriptures that even the Nicean guys agree are the scriptures. I think that relationship speaks volumes about what God thinks about authority and submission. It isn’t man made. God has relational subordination within Himself. And men and women are a parable of that image of God. One? Yes. Equal authority? No. Does it make Jesus a second-class citizen? No way.
Stephen,
This “discussion” is precisely why I wrote my post in the first place. Our criteria are so different that literally no argument that either one of us produces will convince the other of anything. And on that note, peace; I’m out.
Jamey, I know you’re out. In regard to the one verse I know you trust. You say on your post:
“I do think Gal 3:28 contains the very core of the Gospel message rooted in the identity of God: we are all God’s children, and the earthly divisions between us do not count for anything because of what Christ has done.”
Do you believe that that verse should be interpreted as: there are no more authority distinctions between husbands and wives, slaves and masters, political authorities (presidents, police, etc) and citizens, between elders/church leadership and those under them, and EVERYTHING is completely flat from an authority standpoint? Is that the interpretation of that verse using whatever hermeneutic you want to use?
Or is Paul referencing prejudice and carnal fleshy enmity that existed between those people groups? Is Paul doing away with all human authority structures or is he doing away with all natural prejudices?
I do not see how anyone can claim that Paul was talking about authority issues at all in Galatians 3:28 especially since Paul follows up the twin verse in Colossians 3:11 with a clear articulation of male and female roles.
“We’ve been down this road before, but the phrase is, “Let US make man in OUR image.” Paul says, and I know you don’t agree with my “interpretation” here…”
So what are you saying about women in light of this partial verse? Are saying only MEN are made in His image? If so, then what are women, some kind of freakish ‘also ran’ in Creation? I do SO pray you are NOT saying only MEN are created in His image.
Kathy: no, no, no, no
I would never say that. I’m saying that the loving, unified subordination that exists between Father and the Son is reflected in the loving, unified relationship of men and women. It isn’t oppressive. It is as peaceful and harmonious as the Father and the Son. The opposing argument is that subordination is all because of the fall and is man made. I affirm that the Father-Son subordination has existed for all eternity and that God created male and female to show us what that relationship can be like.
Does that help? I’m not asking if you agree, but does it at least make sense?
Within Jesus himself, he clearly had no qualms about referring to Himself as the disciples master, yet he was also capable of being their servant (John 13). Call it the masculine and feminine sides of God.
Stephen ,
Thank you for your posts. You are correct.
Gal. 3 : 28 is about equality in salvation for all believers. It is not about the so called gender inclusion issue or authority / submission.
As Jamey kindly pointed out to me via email, he was graciously bowing out of the conversation and I should have honored his request and not tried to ring him back in. My sincere apologies Jamey. That absolutely was not the spirit of submissiveness on my part. I’m done too. I don’t want to grieve the Spirit by adding words upon words.
Stephen, could I ask you to elaborate on your comments about “that God’s practical application of authority isn’t as oppressive as the C of C has implemented it or as some women are afraid it is.” ? I’m just curious what you were referring to. I’m assuming it is the interpretation of “remain silent”, but wasn’t sure. Thanks!
This a heart-wrenching conversation. It is hard to read. Yet we all have much to learn from one another, if we have the patience and compassion — the love — to read and listen to one another.
Jamey has written well and truly about the differences among us in our understanding of Scripture. i hope that we can begin to examine these different understandings without applying pejorative labels and dismissing them out of hand. For instance, how we read the creation stories in Genesis shapes our understanding of the witness of the New Testament in relation to the work and ministry of women in the church. Our beliefs about Scripture are not the same as Scripture; conversely, there is not one “scriptural” way of reading Scripture to the exclusion of all other ways. i continue to hope that in our churches we can read together and learn together by sharing openly our differing perspectives, listening patiently to one another that we may learn from one another. i continue to hope that we can pray together and work together for the healing of our wounds, so that we may become, by God’s grace, healers of the wounds of the world. Let us be God’s new creation, ministers of reconciliation.
God’s Peace to you.
d